Anchor MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

prepare_write

Draft a memory write operation with supporting evidence, returning a preview and action ID before any entities are created.

Instructions

Prepare a concrete write with fresh discovery/resolution evidence. Returns preview and action_id; creates no entities yet. Pass actual clarification/evidence only when needed. Argument shapes (all listed fields required): create_collection: name,purpose,record_meaning,typical_fields(list[str]),relationship_guidance. update_collection: same plus collection_id. Discovery name/purpose must match proposal. add/remove_collection_alias: collection_id,alias; discover alias first; explicit confirmation. create_record: collection_id,title,data; resolve title in whole collection to check duplicates. update_record: record_id,changes,expected_version. archive_record: record_id,expected_version. rename_record: record_id,title,expected_version. add/remove_record_alias: record_id,alias,expected_version (explicit confirmation required). set_self: record_id,expected_version (explicit self identification required). link_records: source_id,relationship_type,target_id (resolve both endpoints). unlink_records: relationship_id (resolve both endpoints from retrieved relationship). Reasons/clarification are agent-reported, not authenticated consent. Do not ask for an additional user approval when identity and intent are already clear. New object IDs in previews are provisional: use the IDs returned by commit_write.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`arguments`	Yes
`operation`	Yes
`review_ids`	Yes
`clarification`	No
`decision_reason`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 19, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does an excellent job: states no entities are created, provisional preview IDs must be replaced with commit_write results, reasons/clarification are agent-reported not authenticated consent, and explicit confirmation is required for alias/self operations. This is more behavioral disclosure than most.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with a one-sentence purpose and then a compact per-operation field list. It is long but justified by 13 operation variants; a more tabular or bulleted layout would improve scannability, but every sentence adds information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a high-complexity tool with no annotations, the description covers operation semantics, required argument shapes, provisional ID behavior, and confirmation requirements. It is still missing explicit guidance on review_ids and decision_reason, which are required top-level parameters, though the output schema may cover return shape.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description compensates substantially by enumerating the exact required fields for each of the 13 operation variants and noting discovery/confirmation constraints. It does not explain top-level parameters review_ids and decision_reason beyond the word 'evidence', and clarification is only addressed parenthetically, so not full compensation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The first sentence names a specific verb/resource ('Prepare a concrete write') and immediately differentiates from commit-style siblings by stating it 'creates no entities yet' and returns preview/action_id. This also distinguishes it from direct create_* and commit_write.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives clear usage context: use for a single concrete write that needs fresh discovery/resolution evidence, preview, and a later commit. It also instructs when not to ask for additional user approval. However, it does not explicitly compare against prepare_batch_write or the direct create_* siblings, so exclusions are only implied.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.